Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Purpose of small front arms of this dinosaur

Sorry, this is very unofficial and I do apologize if this comment is in the wrong place.

After visiting a dinosaur museem in Alberta Canada (I think where a T-Rex fossil or skeleton was found), the person in charge of the tour said that the small front arms of T-rex have not been truly reasoned for. I thought about it after the visit, and I wondered if possibly they are for defense of vital organs (heart, lungs, etc...) in the front of the dinosaur. That if another dinosaur or group of dinosaurs were to attack the T-rex, they would go for the heart or lungs (if not eyes also, which are very big and easy to "knock" out, and effectively making the dinosaur useless if it can not see), and T-rex's defense of these organs is it's front arms.

I do not know too much about dinosaurs, but I think there are two places to attack a T-rex to kill it or render it neutral in battle: the large eyes so it can not see, or it's heart and lungs which will, within minutes, kill it. It's defense of heart and lungs are the small arms at the front, to repel smaller dinosaurs that could climb up onto it (probably attacking in large numbers at once, 10-15 at once).

Would be really cool to get feedback on this, see what people who know what they are talking about have to say. Bye for now.

But how does that explain the arm size? Why would a theropod with larger arms have a harder time defending its organs? FunkMonk (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I like your idea, but I must agree with FunkMonk. In addition, the arms were far too short to be able to protect the eyes – and destroying the eyes might not have rendered T. rex utterly defenseless; there is ample evidence of T. rex having acute senses of smell and hearing too. I personally believe that T. rex's forelimbs were so reduced in order to permit perfect balance with its massive head – if the arms had been longer, T. rex might have been too front-heavy to stand or move with good balance. However, there is evidence suggesting that these arms posessed rather strong muscles, which indicates that they would have had some function. (Anonymous) 23:19, 9 July 2010

Carnivore?

Old discussion about whether T rex was a herbivore, now just collecting personal attacks

Hasn't it been proven that the T-Rex was actually a plant eater? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.195.124 (talk) 06:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it has not. J. Spencer (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought scientists said that they figured out the T-Rex would have broken all his teeth if he bit into another dinosaur.--72.68.195.124 (talk) 07:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur teeth are about the least breakable theropod teeth, as they had thick rounded cross-sections. They could even crunch up bone to some extent, as seen in tyrannosaur droppings. J. Spencer (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The whole T. rex was a plant eater is a myth made up by creationists to try to explain carnivores in paradise, I believe. There's a diorama showing a T. rex eating plants in that new creation museum. Funny stuff. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this museum is VERY accurate for such a theory. Being a Creationist myself I have done extensive research when I found out that the museum had such a diagram and it turns out that such a depiction was true to a degree. And for your imformation it is not a myth, but it would also take a lot of time that i do not have at the moment. (I'm still in school.) (Dinotitan 11:02 4/12/10)

This might be different, as I vaguely remember as a kid reading that some paleontologists thought that theropod teeth would snap if used in active predation, thereby meaning that they were scavengers. Nuts if I know where this was, though. This may have been a riff on Lambe's contention that theropods were scavengers because their teeth showed little wear; he neglected to take into account their continuous replacement, however. J. Spencer (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No need to attack and insult Creationists, Dinoguy2. It being a "myth" is just your opinion. --72.80.35.106 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in whatever case, there is no evidence or reason to think that tyrannosaur teeth were unusually prone to breakage. Given continuous replacement of teeth, a broken tooth would be replaced in short order anyway. J. Spencer (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You need to remove the quotes from "myth" and put them around "opinion". Sheep81 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't attacking anyone, at least not intentionally. It is a myth because it's demonstrably not true. There's T. rex dung with bone in it and T. rex bite marks on the skeletons of other dinosaurs. This is proof that it ate meat. I personally find the diorama funny because of this, I'm sorry if you feel like that's an attack. Since no published non-creationsist sources have tried to perpetuate this myth, I was pretty sure creationists actually made it up. That's just the facts, man ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a nice tasty branch fell on top of the Triceratops and the T. rex accidentally bit him. I'm sure he was very apologetic afterwards. Sheep81 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

He said it was a myth, 'I believe'. That is his opinion. Don't be precious.--Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Dinoguy2 is attacking or insulting creationists. This is, or should be, a free forum for the exchange of ideas, as long as the ideas are discussed and not the people who talk about them. Now curved, serrated teeth are obviously intended to slice through flesh, like a steak knife. They would be hopeless for cutting vegetation, fruit or bark. Ever tried cutting your alad with a steak knife? Then there's its pretty wicked talons, and the spaces in Triceratops bones that match T-rex teeth.--Gazzster (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS. I remember the idea about T-rex teeth breaking about 20 years ago. I believe that was related to the idea that T-rex was a scavenger, which is revived from time to time.--Gazzster (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of T.rex tooth strength,[1]. Must have been some tough carrots! Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has seriously suggested that it was a herbivore, but many have suggested that it scavenged, due to its large head and small arms.Dendodge (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

T-rex has been proven not to be a herbivore. A paleontologist found T-rex bite marks on a Triceratops hip bone. He used dental putty and found that they were an exact match to fossolized Tyrannosaurus teeth.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 7:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that all dinosaurs ate plants would appear to be based on a creationist interpretation of Genesis 1,30: 'And to all the wild animals....I (Yahweh) give all the foliage of the plants as their food.' I am a Christian, I would point out, but two things to note about this. Firstly, Genesis is not a scientific textbook. Its human authors were people of their time, attempting to explain the universe with concepts familiar to themselves, as every culture has done before and since. Secondly, God is presented as gifting plants to humankind and the other animals. It is not denying flesh to them. There is nothing in this passage which prohibits meat. I could go on with a long list of incoherencies concerning creatures that turned from plant eaters to meat eaters. Such as, why do snakes and spiders have venom except to kill? What did the mosquito feed on before it sucked blood? Etc, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

"What did the mosquito feed on before it sucked blood?" Orange juice, obviously. This is similar to the "don't think about it too much" explainations given for Noah's flood. When asked why the fossil record appears to preserve primitive taxa in lower strata than advanced taxa, some creationsists have replied that advanced taxa were better able to run up hill to avoid rising floodwaters. Presumably this includes flowering plants and trees, as well as whales. Actually I've never seen an explaination for what the floodwater salinity was and how oppositely adapted sealife (fresh vs. salt water) are supposed to have survived. Sadly nobody has proposed an aquarium on the ark. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I've heard explanations to the effect that the heavier seawater and lighter freshwater didn't mix, at least in places, so each type of aquatic organism had refuge minihabitats in which to survive. Yeah. One of the things that amused me about the "illusion" of evolution in the fossil record being explained as increasing animal mobility in the face of rising flood waters is that if it were true one would expect the most recent strata to consist entirely of flying animals! Needless to say, they don't. Abyssal (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, herbivore? You people are hilarious! Why even waste your time arguing about the diet of the dinosaur that has bone in its fossilized droppings? Tyrannosaurus may have been a scavenger, but it was certainly NOT a herbivore. No offense, but you creationists are unimaginable idiots! HA! HA! HA! HA! HAAAAA!!!!!!!! User:Dinolover45, 6 May, 2010, 8:41 PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Dinolover45, Are you seriously THAT rude? Where do even get the gall to denounce so many good and honest people who not only love others but serve the Almighty Lord? Are you really daring to suggest that people you have never even met are "unimaginable idiots". You know, you should never say something about some one unless you hve the whole story and even then you need a right to talk about them, let alone denounce all that they stand for. If you were a Creationist, how would YOU feel if someone denounced YOUR faith and YOUR beliefs. (Dinotitan 1:25pm 5/25/2010)

Actually, Bible skeptics not only have our beliefs (or lack thereof) denounced, we're told we're degenerate scum with no moral compasses who deserve to have our citizenship stripped from us (ask George H. W. Bush) and be tortured forever in Hell. Abyssal (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This section has devolved into personal attacks and should be collapsed or archived. de Bivort 19:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Am I the only one who thinks the current taxobox image is rather cheesy with its obviously blackened background and undescriptive angle? Why not use the featured image of the skull instead? Funkynusayri (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind. It's always kind of bothered me that the teeth in that mount seem to be dangling by their roots, making them look three times longer than they would have been in life... The only problem with the featured pic is that it's taken at an odd, extrme perspecive that still doesn't give you a solid idea of the actual shape of the skull (was it taken by Luis Rey? ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Whoops, I changed the image before I saw your addition. On the angle, even though it's, well, "Luis Reyish" (he would probably had included a tiny body in the picture as well), I think it's many times better than the previous one, and well, it's featured! Gives an aesthetically pleasing start to the article. I still think we should have a proper profile of the skull, or better, a full skeleton, far up in the article, the first one seen is the incorrect Allosaurus skull, which seems kind of odd.

File:Senckenberg Saurier im Lichthof.jpg

Something like the one on the left here, just better angled and with a full tail. (Funkynusayri (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I rather like the new image - as well as not hsving insanely long teeth, it seems to me to have a feeling of movement. Philcha (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

definition of a digit

Upon further review, does a metacarpal count as a digit or a finger? I was under the impression that you need a phalanx bone. J. Spencer (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno... I would think you need phalanges or else pandas might have six fingers. Sheep81 (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Digits are fingers and toes, a Metacarpal is a bone in the finger. Therefore, one would presume that the Metacarpal would be part of a finger, which would be a digit. This means the answer is actually, well, both. Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^{Help and assistance} 01:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your metacarpals are in your palm, not your fingers. They are bound together by tissue, not externally separated like the phalanges are. This is the case in most animals I can think of. Sheep81 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think "digit" refers to the phalanges, hence "digitigrade". -- John.Conway (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Size comparison image

Why do we still an image that includes Therizinosaurus (a vegetarian mega-theropod) and Tyrannosaurus in puce, when we agreed on one without Therizinosaurus and with Tyrannosaurus in black ([2])? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philcha (talk • contribs) 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Size comparison of selected carnivorous dinosaurs, based on illustrations by Scott Hartman (Tyrannosaurus, Allosaurus), Ville Sinkkonen (Carcharodontosaurus), Gregory Paul (Giganotosaurus), and ArthurWeasley and Steveoc 86 (Spinosaurus)

• Well, I've already explained why I put it there on my talk page. Didn't realise it would be such a big deal, and no one else complained. I think Mapusaurus and Therizinosaurus are important additions, after all, they're both huge theropods, and Therizinosaurus is even taller than Tyrannosaurus. Both considerably larger than Allosaurus, which is there instead of them on the other version, and looks out of place. I don't see the necessity in having Tyranno in black either... I've added the image in question to the right of this page, by the way. Funkynusayri (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well why is Cacharodontosaurus placed before T.Rex? I honestly think that would confuse some people as to which was larger. Also tyrannosaurus should be 13 squares long, representing the fact that it was roughly 13m long. Especially since Giga and T-Rex were basically the same size with Giga longer.Mcelite (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

That's due to the bend in the tail. If you picture it straightened out, it would take up an extra square. Factor in that the neck isn't straight and it's even longer. Most size estimates just measure vertebrae length, they don't take posture into account. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the top estimates have it longer. They're arranged by top estimated length as listed on Dinosaur size. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Funkynusayri, I knew I'd raised the question before, thanks for reminding me of where. My own opinion is that: highlighting the "star" of the article in a strongly contrasting colour is a good idea; Therizinosaurus (a vegetarian mega-theropod) is not all that relevant; the presence of Allosaurus makes the point that the Cretaceous mega-predators were much larger that the Jurassic's largest known predator; Mapusaurus would be a desirable addition but we'll have to stop somewhere. What do others think? Philcha (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense..Mcelite (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)mcelite

To Mcelite - Giga was way bigger my friend. It was around forty-five feet in length and weighed around7-8 tons. In comparison T-rex was only forty feet in length and it wieghed only 6 tons. As for the Cacharodontosaurus and T-rex sizes being confusing, that's okay. Paleontologists are still trying to figure out which is bigger. It's kind of the same thing as the Dienosuchus - Sarcosuchus debate, except with Therapod dinosaurs instead of crocodilians.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

note that thing if scientist measure the spinosaurus length with its size of skull than it is strongly possible tyrannosaurus rex might be 14.5 meters long. Because one tyrannosaurus largest skull found then anyother espeially larger than sue skull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.Ammar.T.K.K (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ms. dino fanatic where are u getting that from? 6 tons exactly? T-Rex has been estiamted to weigh 8 tons by some scientists furthermore, T-Rex and Giga had basically the same hip height with Giga having a longer length. Furthermore, the length of T-Rex estiamted so far is 43 feet not 40 possibly even larger since there is some debate as to if Sue was a old T-Rex or not. To make it even more complicated T-Rex's teeth were larger than Giga's. Peace Mcelite (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

I get all of this from watching Discovery channel. Yes, there have been some T-rex that have gotten large like Sue. I know that she is the oldest at about 30 years, but that also makes her the longest, at about 43-45 feet in length. I heard a rumor somewhere about a possible 56 foot T-rex, but I am uncertain, as I have seen this only one on Discovery Channel and I never saw it again. And did I say Giganotosaurus was higher? No. I simply said he was longer. Most scientists, such as Jack Horner and the paleontologists who worked with the producers of Walking with Dinosaurs, agree that T-rex was around 6-6.5 tons. Also, T-rex may have had large teeth but that doesn't make it as big or bigger than Giga. Just because the Saber-tooth cats evolved teeth that were almost as large as T-rex's teeth, doesn't make it as large as T-rex. Same thing with T-rex and Giga. T-rex was simply specialized to eat certain types of dinosaur, Most likely carrion, because they were long and thick. Giga's teeth ,on the other hand, were smaller but thin and serrated, perfect for slicing flesh. Okay, I am getting off topic. What I'm trying to say is that the statistics I mentioned were for an average T-rex next to an average Giga. I don't usually go by records.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't know that much about dentition. Scavenger dentition as seen in animals that specialize in it have no need to be structured like Tyrannosaurus's teeth. The teeth of T-Rex were bonecrushers much better for killing than scavenging and sorry but Jack Horner is sometimes off the wall to me. His idea of T-Rex being mainly a scavenger is a very narrow view, and underestimates the ability the animals were possibly capable of. Also records make a difference because if one could reach that size than others could as well and from what I read Sue was not that old she was more like 25 years old which was most likely not old for the speciesMcelite (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Little nitpick... not that I think T. rex was a pure scavenger (obviously it probably did both like all carnivores), but wouldn't you get the most out of any carcass by being able to consume the bone as well as the meat? Bone crushing teeth make T. rex better at eating, not better at killing. Other dinosaurs killed just fine without them. Minor nitpick #2: Sue was indeed quite old and is among the oldest-age T. rex specimens known. Minor nitpick #3: given the number of rex specimens known, I think the average length would be something like 35-38 ft, not 40. 40 is on the big side, with 42ft representing the very largest known. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then comes the problem how are we 100% sure that Sue was an old T. Rex due to the fact that we are not sure what the life span of the species was? Also the fact that crocodiliams easily live over 50 years, and did they take the time to try and see if the largest Giga skeleton is considered an old individual as well. Your right though T. Rex teeth were good for eating. The question comes what if we find a T. Rex that's 50 feet and it's younger than Sue? Then what?Mcelite (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

One of the papers on Sue uses uses the fact that it has a lot of growth-related pathologies, many healed injuries that healed very long before it dies, etc. and possibly growth rings (don't have the paper handy) to basically determine that Sue was an elderly individual. I'd be very surprised if a younger one were found that was larger--that might be a good argument for naming a new species. The same pathologies were, I assume, not found in the few Gig specimens we have (or they would have been reported). We can probably speculate pretty reasonably that the largest Gig specimens are younger than Sue. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well the problem with injuries is that we are not sure how much of a rough life Sue had. So how can alot of healed injuries be significant with age especially with the possiblity that T. Rex hunted in pairs or small packs. Furthermore, how much nutrition the animal is receiving would also affect growth rate of the animal which can be seen in reptiles, birds, and mammals so if Sue wasn't getting the full nutrition she needed when she was younger it is possible that this would have effected her size overall. Also there have been many other surprises in the fossil records so I wouldn't be too shocked if a larger T. Rex is found and younger than Sue and vice versa can be said for Giga if we find a Giga that is older than the skeletons we've found but smaller than the others than what are we going to about estimations? lol Mcelite (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

If a bigger one is ever found and described, we'll include it. Simple as that. Estimates aren't based on what we think their max possible size was, since that's nothing but wild speculation, not based on evidence. Estimates are based on concrete evidence from fossils. Anyway, we can sit here and speculate about whether or not Sue was towards the end of rex lifespan, but the scientists who actually studied the specimen think it is. So we should go by their opion on this. The sites are listed in Sue (dinosaur). Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

to some it up Spino size=? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.104.127 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC) I think that the size comparison needs updating to more up-to date sizes. Any one agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 17:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Which one is out of date? Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

well spinosaurus could reach 18m but it is only shown at 15m. T-rex, Carcharodontosaurus could reach 14m and i think giganotosaurus could too.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on Talk:Spinosaurus. Also, it's wrong to say Spinosaurus "could reach" 18m. THe published estimates posit a range between 16 and 18 meters. This doesn't mean adults reached a max length of 18-it means we don't know how big it was, but it probably fell within that range. I went with a more conservative length since it's better in science to err on the side of caution (and based on the skull, and 18m spino would have a very long tail indeed!). Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed that in the Description section it says smaller than Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus. Yet I find this a bit mis-leading as Carcharodontosaurus was also bigger than Tyrannosaurus. Since Carcharodontosaurus Sahiricus measured 13m, compared to the T-Rex sue at 12.8m, it was bigger. And that is not counting the fact that Carcharodontosaurus Iguidennis had a larger skull than C.Sahiricus so would be larger. (the only estimates i can find put it at 13-14m, even the minimum size is still bigger than T-Rex.) So i am saying that Carcharodontosaurus should also be said as bigger than T-Rex because it is. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited that section to say "such as Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus." This should help prevent it from becoming an exhaustive list of all theropods estimated to be larger (which right now could also conceivably include Therizinosaurus, Deinocheirus, Bahariasaurus etc). Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Move "Posture" and "Arms"

I suggest these should be part of "Description". Philcha (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Scavenging again

The article still seems to be treating the scavenging hypothesis seriously, even though it's only advocated--as far as I know--by one researcher (Horner), and and he hasn't published it in peer-reviewed literature. Heck, he even admits in one of his books (the one about Sue, maybe?) that he advocates it to stir up controversy. I understand that it's big part of the Tyrannosaurus pop-culture documentary circuit, but I'm not sure how much space it should be given. It should be treated as a fringe hypothesis isn't taken very seriously. — John.Conway (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This hypothesis seems to be somewhat more credible than the plant eating hypothesis. Was there any more mention of it in recent journals? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The scavenger hypothesis is quite old. It is mentioned in popular literature from the 1980s. And I've a feeling its goes back to the discovery of T-rex. So it's a significant aspect of study.--Gazzster (talk) 22:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The pure scavenger hypothesis still gets air-time on TV, and I think one of Wikipedia's most valuable functions is to refute popular misconceptions. Philcha (talk) 23:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretending a popular misconception doesn't exist is only a 'refutation' of it if you're already in the know. Paleogeeks like us can feel vindicated if we ignore the scavenger thing, but that's not what this page is for... Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but its still doesn't really clearly say that it's a fringe hypothesis, and that it's been pretty much refuted (I thought those hadrosaur tail bites cleared this up?). I didn't want to edit this myself, because I'm no tyrannosaur expert, but isn't this the state of the literature? — John.Conway (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well there's been alot more evidence leading towards T-Rex being a very active predator. Like John.Conway pointed out the tail bites on the hadrosaur also there have been many healed injuries found on tricerotops, alamosaurus, and many duck-billed dinosaurs with healed bones that were caused by a bite from no other predator than Tyrannosaurus. It's funny how scientist are hesitant to say T-Rex is more of a predator than a scavenger but find feathers on one species of dinosaur and they all get feathers which is mostly assumptive and can be considered careless.Mcelite (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

We ought to be careful about ruling out any reasonable hypothesis. Let's remember too, that 'reasonable' hypotheses can be turned on their heads overnight by more 'tendy' hypotheses. The idea that sauropods were amphibious was 'reasonable' (and shows signs of returning to some extent). Hadrosaurs used to be bipedal and birds descended from thecodonts.--Gazzster (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

We also don't want to say anything here that's not explicitly stated in the lit. I agree that with all the bite mark evidence, the idea that that T. rex was a pure scavenger doesn't hold any water, period. But has this actually been stated in the lit? If so, we can maybe use a quote from the paper that describes this as a "fringe hypothesis" that's been "refuted." If not, it's not our place to editorialize. If people publishing the primary and secondary lit haven't gone out on this limb, we as tertiary lit shouldn't either. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read the Wikipedia guidelines on original research very carefully, but that seems to be a really strict interpretation. Most article require a good deal of interpretation of the literature to make any sense at all. In this case, what we seem to have are papers explicitly stating that T. did engage in predatory behaviour, and nothing (recent) stating otherwise (although I admit such papers might exist, but I haven't seen them). The hardline "T. was only a scavenger" hypothesis is a fringe one, as the much current literature explicitly contradicts it, none explicitly endorses it, and only one scientist I know of espouses it. Of course, this will all come crashing down if there's a paper endorsing pure scavenging out there I don't know about. — John.Conway (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief the scavenging theory has been atracting a lot of attention. Not just from Horner but from other paleontologists and biologists as well. Two biologists who had never heard of T-rex before decided to test out a scavenging equation on T-rex, and found that T-rex could have easily led a life of scavenging. This is because T-rex was a reptile(despite being more closely related to birds, which is my only concern about flaws in the equation), and reptiles have slow metabolisims. The biologists expected the need for food to be great, but found that all T-rex needed to survive(if it was scavenging) was to have a meal the size of a human every five to six days(This is also supported by the fact that T-rex had a relatively good sense of site as well as an awesome sense of smell). If food was scarce then it may have hunted. T-rex bite marks have been found on a Triceratops hip bone in an area that could only have been eaten if the Triceratops was already dead and torn to pieces. However, another bite mark found on a hadrosaur was found to have healed, which means the hadrosaur was alive. So it could also have been an opertunist.Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

However, there is more evidence pointing towards T-Rex being a more active hunter than a scavenger. It's dentition alone is evidence of having an active life. A animal that is a pure scavenger would not need any dentition like T-Rex. It's jaws where built for dealing with stress which is something not necessary if you're a scavenger. Also more evidence points towards T-Rex being warm-blooded so it's metabolism wouldn't have been slow. So T-Rex would have been better off hunting then scavenging for food.Mcelite (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)mcelite

Re "Two biologists who had never heard of T-rex before decided to test out a scavenging equation on T-rex,..." (Ms. dino fanatic 01:42, 4 March 2008 ), yes, they were from Glasgow U and it's reported in the Tyrannosaurus article. Philcha (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re "A animal that is a pure scavenger would not need any dentition like T-Rex" (Mcelite 02:05, 4 March 2008), I agree! The first time I heard of the pure scavenger hypothesis it struck me that natural selection would not favour such dentition in a pure scavenger: it's ridiculously over-gunned and over-expensive to build and replace; and it's very sub-optimal for scavenging, not suitable for stripping flesh off bones nor for extracting tender internal organs (a vulture's long beak and neck are best for that in a largeish animal) nor for splitting bones length-wise to get at the marrow as hyenas do (and they're not pure scavengers!). It also struck me at the time that natural selection would not favour improving 3-D vision in a pure scavenger (T-rex was the last tyrannosaurid - and tyrannosauroid ; and has the best 3-D vision of its lineage) but would favour it in a killer for which improved accuracy would complement its devastating bite power. I couldn't find a ref for the dentition argument, it would be great if someone could provide one. Philcha (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The scavenger hypothesis is interesting. But if T-rex (and presumably other tyrannosaurids) was not an active predator, what was? There had to be one to keep the herds of hadrosaurs and ceratopsians in check.--Gazzster (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Nature does favor some complete scavengers like the vulture.And if the Cretaceous world was anything like Africa and had a large array of animals, then yes, T-rex needed to have 3-D vision. I doesn't do much good if you can smell food but never find it. Also T-rex ran the risk of tripping over the carcass and breaking it's skull if its depth perception was bad. And Philcha? I unfortunately have to shoot the teeth thing down, seeing as you contradict yourself in that. T-rex had bone-crushing jaws. And you're right that the teeth were not suitable for stripping flesh from bone. But now tell me, how much meat would be left on a carcass after the Dromeosaurids got through with it? Not much probably. So T-rex probably ate the bones too. Let me add that the bones that it ate have also been found in T-rex coprolite. If it found a complete carcass then T-rex could still eat it. The front teeth were D shaped. Perfect for holding prey, or ripping meat from a carcass. Also, T-rex's bite force was so powerful, that it didn't probably even try to rip flesh from bone, so much as just take a huge bite out of you, bones and all.Another thing, if you're crushing bone you do need some rather powerful stress-absorbing jaws. Our jaws are not stress absorbing, nor are they strong(so I have heard. I may be wrong). I'd like to see you crunch bones. Also, there is only one man out of 6 billion who can chew and eat steel. And even if T-rex was warn-blooded, which it probably was, it could still have hunted. Gazzster- Dromeosaurids, such as Dienonochus and Troodon would keep them in check. (Although technically Troodon is a Troodontid, but close enough.)Ms. dino fanatic (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if the whole pack hunting thing is allowed for, the dromies and troodontids of the time were pretty small. I have a hard time imagining Troodon going after anything but hatchling Maiasaura. Do you mena that small predators kept the population in check by eating young and eggs in large quantities? Is there any evidence for dromie or troodontid predation on ceratopsians and hadrosaurs at all? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even large predators will not risk injury if a smaller, weaker prey can be had. So it is unlikely that dromaeosaurs, troodontists or the like would risk attacking a fully grown healthy hadrosaur, ceratopsian or ankylosaur, even in packs. --Gazzster (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ms. dino fanatic. Re the dentition, I said "splitting bones length-wise to get at the marrow as hyenas do". Theropods did not have this capability, and Tyrannosaurus more probably just crushed bone as an effective way of killing / crippling its prey rather than specifically as a feeding strategy. Re the 3D vision, it was apparently a very late development even in tyrannosauroids, and Tyrannosarus had noticeably better 3-D vision that the slightly earlier tyrannosaurid Daspletosaurus. This rapid development suggests that it was a significant advantage in the context of natural selection. It's easy to see how it would be a significant advantage for a predator while AFAIK no-one has suggested how it would be a significant advantage for a pure scavenger. It's worth noting that tyrannosauroids got along quite well without enhanced 3-D vision for most of their history, until the very late Cretaceous. Philcha (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a common misconception because of our knee-jerk reflexes against beastial uglyness that hyenas are exclusively scavengers. Especially in the case of the spotted hyena that is wrong. Hyenas are active predators and are second in the foof chain of the savanah only to lions. Some of their fatal predatorial traits such as bone-crushing jaws can also serve for succesful oportunistic scavenging but that does not make them devoted scavengers. Tyrannosaurus propably had a similar feeding behaviour.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

True, and the article refers to that fact when it says, "the only modern pure scavengers are large gliding birds" - it had to be kept very concise because the article's pretty long. Philcha (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Vulture olfaction

I thought I should point out that the phrase "These suggest a highly developed sense of smell which could sniff out carcasses over great distances, as modern vultures do." in the Feeding strategies section is very misleading, as this is only present in the three Cathartes species – indeed both Black and King Vultures, which have no functioning sense of smell (though apparently this may not be the case with King Vulture after all), depend on the Cathartes vultures to lead them to food. Old World Vultures rely solely on their eyesight while searching for food. This is mostly habitat based: Old World Vultures forage in open areas, while the Cathartes species forage in forests where eyesight is much less useful in finding carrion. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambush predator?

I've added to the "Locomotion" section Paul and Christiansen's argument (2000) that neoceratopsions were fast; if true, that undermines the argument that Tyrannosaurus did not have to be fast - unless it was an ambush predator. My own feeling is that the "ambush predator" idea is implausible - how would a 2-storey high predator hide? The one thing it has going for it is that Tyrannosaurus had big levers on the knee and heel (Paul, PDW), which suggests rapid acceleration. More seriously, the only ref we have at present for the "ambush predator" idea is Dinocards. I've googled for "Tyrannosaurus ambush" and got nothing but forums, blogs and mailing lists (a few quite serious ones; plus a ton of uselss stuff). Does anyone know of any good refs that discuss the "ambush predator" idea? Philcha (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

These DML posts take the idea seriously [3] [4] Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd post you mention, [5], is mainly about the scavenger hypothesis. The part about ambush predators is an afterthought and suggests a modus operandi "much like crocodilians and the Komodo dragon" - two low-slung lurkers, one in the water and the other in the bushes!

The 1st one, [6], says, "Even wild turkeys will come close if you hold still enough, especially on windy/rainy days. The key is to stare at something nearby so your eyes don't move, and let them walk into your field of vision." I found that interesting, as I've noticed examples of dumb behaviour in prey - but mainly among invertebrates. In addition I suspect the main risk to wild turkeys from humans is ranged weapons (bows, guns) and sneaky weapons like nets and snares, so I'd expect that selection pressure for wild turkeys to avoid the "stand still" tactic is weak. OTOH T. rex had AFAIK 2 main prey animals, Edmontosaurus and Triceratops, which suggests the prey would have been under strong selection pressure to avoid such simple tactics. -- Philcha (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Define 'big' in terms of levers. I understand Paul has a problem with relative vs. absolute size of moment arms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.217.140 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair question. Paul in PDW doesn't give dimensions, and frustratingly I can't find the text passage about the knee and heel levers (and PDW taight me the phrase "cnemial crest", dammit!). But his skeletal reconstructions are mostly printed at about the same size, and T. rex’ cnemial crests and heel-bones look slightly larger and more robust than in skeletal reconstructions of other theropods. So I suspect Paul meant large relative to overall size. Paul (PDW, p. 320 in my copy) also comments that T. rex’ hip bones were robust but "remarkably narrow" while discussing its speed - I think he meant that T. rex had less tendency to roll like a sailor while moving; I'd also note that human sprinters are generally built like boxers but have narrower hips (Linford Christie is an extreme example of this tendency).

OTOH Hutchinsinon in Analysis of hindlimb muscle moment arms in Tyrannosaurus rex using a three-dimensional musculoskeletal computer model: implications for stance, gait, and speed (Paleobiology, 31(4), 2005, pp. 676–701) argues that "T. rex did not have an extraordinarily large knee extensor moment arm." -- Philcha (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

dinosaur arm

The T-rex's third metacarpal is actually cleverly tucked away in it's palm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.134.15 (talk) 03:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The placement of T-rex's arms has always bothered me. While walking through museums observing the posing of dinosaurs the scapula and arms of nearly all dinosaurs appears properly aligned to the back of the animal, corresponding roughly to shoulders. However on the T-rex, the scapula and arms seem to always float on the front of the rib cage. Does anyone have an explanation of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.1.228.66 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

In the specimens where that part of the skeleton was found relatively undisturbed, that has consistently been the placement of those bones as they are found. Why? Who knows?Deejaye6 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Bergmann's Rule?

Could the differences in the "Gracile" and "Robust" Tyrannosaur morphs be attributed to this? Are the Gracile and Robust morphs found further south and north of eachother, or do they tend to be more evenly dispersed?

K00bine (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, i'm Ben from Sydney... Actually which gender that are more larger, robust, heavier, stronger and of course more ferocious, the female or the male? I hope the more dominant gender is, of course, the male.( I read a book titled Tyrannosaurus Rex, the Tyrant King (Life of the Past) that was writen by Peter Larson and the book was published on July 2008, a years ago. In the book he said females are larger and heavier than males and he also said it's not because of the geographic variation, but in the article it's said the differences could also be age-related, with 'robust' individuals being older animals and may be indicative of geographic variation rather than sexual dimorphism). Can you explain further about this? Thank you

Ben, 12.00, 08 March 2009

Part of it is that this article may not have caught up to current events. Larson's work used measurements of tyrannosaur bones to see if there were consistent discrete clusters of specimens. He found a robust and a gracile morph. It's been kicked around for a while that robust-morph theropods were female and gracile-morph theropods were male. In this case, B-rex has medullary bone tissue which makes it female, and B-rex is also robust, which makes Larson more confident that the robust morph is female. The association of robust=female can be falsified by finding medullary tissue in bones of a gracile rex, but until then it's a reasonable working hypothesis and one that's simpler to work with than what been used before (chevron position, shape of the pelvis, comparison to living birds and crocodiles...) J. Spencer (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So it is confirm that female Tyrannosaurus are larger, heavier, stronger and fiercer than male or the male are being the more larger, heavier, stronger and fiercer? (I believe the more robust morph are the males) Ben, 10:00, 9 March 2009

Well, we can't say anything about ferocity, as that doesn't fossilize. However, if Larson is correct that robust=female, then the more heavily-built and (to date) larger version is female. J. Spencer (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is confirmed that females are more massive? I still thinking Larson is wrong.

Ben, 12.00, 30 May 2009

It is not confirmed, although it is testable if enough specimens are found with medullary tissue. To be perfectly frank (and cynical about the whole exercise), hardly anything is ever confirmed once you get into paleobiology; some things are just more likely than others. J. Spencer (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So why the article about sexual dimorphism isn't to be changed that females are more massive than males?

Ben, 10:00, 31 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.102 (talk)

Cryptozoology

Living Tyrannosaurus have come up every now and again in cryptozoology,Kasai Rex and Burrunjor as notable examples. In what way could they fit into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.54.99.46 (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wait until they appear in a reliable source. Given the revolutionary nature of such a discovery, there will be headlines in every newspaper and articles in Science (journal) and Nature (journal). Until that happens, such suggestions don't belong in the article.-gadfium 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it would be okay just to add a simple "some cryptids, such as the Kasai Rex are said to be similar to tyrannosaurus." T.Neo (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like weael language. Who says they're similar? Need a published source and demonstration of relevance, as it also sounds a bit like second-degree connective trivia. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

DNA comparisons to modern birds

An article of 2008-04-24 at AP.org discusses more recent findings of the comparison of T.Rex connective tissue DNA to that of modern birds (esp. chickens). — Loadmaster (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Targeted for vandalism

http://biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=742 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.176.42 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tyrannosaurus Helcaraxae"

I've heard about a rumored "wooly" tyrannosaurus found in alaska that had feathers and was called Tyrannosaurus Helcaraxae. If someone can find a source on this, can they add it to the article or make an article about it? I couldn't find a source. Thanks. Elasmosaurus (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it really was just a made-up dinosaur in a book called A Field Guide To Dinosaurs. Elasmosaurus (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Even as a fictional dinosaur T. helcaraxae (without capitalization) would be correct. On the other hand I guess that tyrannosaurid protofeathers would have been lost in their lineage much before the birth of the Tyrannosaurus genus so it is propable that even if the T-chicks had feathers that the adults would most propably not retained them. Although I must admit this is highly speculative (and after all there is also the wooly Sumatran Rhino to prove me wrong).--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I theorize that the males had colorful feathers on the head, with the babies being covered in down. But I don't have a source or a link, it's just an opinion. Elasmosaurus (talk) 01:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

False precision

In this edit I spelt "1 m" out as "one meter" and changed the conversion from "3 ft 3 in" to "3 ft". I was reverted by Firsfron with "revert removal of non-breaking space, WP:MOS". Sure I removed a non-breaking space but it had become unnecessary since the length was written in full but there was more to my edit than a mere removal of a non-breaking space ... and if we're throwing the MoS around then WP:MOSNUM#Conversions:

• In the main text, spell out the main units ...
• Converted values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source value

Giving the length of Tyrannosaurus' arms to the nearest inch as just about as sensible as doing the same for man but we don't need to go so far, it's plain that this was just a bad conversion from one metre. JIMp _talk·cont 16:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry. Thanks for the explanation. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Firs, I just wanted to justify my reversion of your reversion of my revision. JIMp _talk·cont 01:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Swimming?

Any information regarding whether or not the T.Rex was capable of swimming? ScienceApe (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Since other thropods were capable of swiming, it's reasonable to assume that T. Rex could as well, probably by undulating its tail lik a crocodile's.

207.164.127.26 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC) or more scinitificly it had it's legs on the bottom of the area thus limmiting were it could go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.104.127 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I beleive the T. Rex was not able to swin because of its small arms. True? Androo123 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Small arms don't prohibit swimming ability. Keep in mind that water snakes swim without any limbs. In fact, the greatest swimmers of all, fish, don't have arms or legs either, just little fins.Briham (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it could swim by kicking its feet. Just not for long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.219.193 (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As stated by others, it probably swam primarily using its tail, but there's no reason to think the legs didn't have a role. Elephants are excellent swimmers; some think Asian elephants migrated to Sri Lanka by swimming the ocean ( http://www.upali.ch/swim_en.html ), and they don't have a big tail and wide feet like a tyrannosaur did.Briham (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trackway evidence (tips of toes hitting the bottom) shows that large theropods could swim. No direct evidence for T. rex but I don't think there's any reason to assume it was a special case. From what I've read, they'd probably kick their feet like modern swimming birds (explaining the trackway evidence) and also probably undulate the tail to some degree like a crocodile. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting. Can we add this into the article? ScienceApe (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say no--the trackways are not specifically tyrannosaur, and anything you say about swimming has to be about theropods in general, so it would be better suited to Theropoda. Maybe a quick blurb adapted from that could go in the locomotion section though. You'd also have to dig up the cites, anybody know the papers that deal with this? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox extinct

The Tyrannosaurus is extinct, so why hasn't it been added in the current status? Androo123 (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Prehistoric species don't count under any official conservation organisations designations. Fossil animals are clearly extinct, based on the listed fossil range. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How the magnifisent dinosours became extinct?

I am a 10 year old girl who is interested in how the dinosours became extinced.

The were thousands even millions of dinosours in the age of the dinosours.

How could they all go extinced.

Many people have been wondering about this.

But now i have the posible answer.

The Tyrannosourus <t rex> is a meat eater so they ate all of the other dinosors so they are dead.

But how did the tyrannosaurus <t rex> become extinct.

Well here it is.

The tyrannosaurus <t rex> didnt have any thing to eat exept plant which they did not like or eachother well they ate eachother so the last dinosour died a slow pain full death.

thank you for reading my artical

by Elisha Jones

young ten year old girl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.82.199 (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Elisha. It's great that you're interested in dinosaurs. And it's pretty impressive that you've worked out the idea of a food chain, which is scientists' short way of saying that animals can survive only if there is enough of the right kinds of food for them. But the extinction of the dinosaurs was part of a much larger extinction - you might like to read about it at Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. -- Philcha (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Feeding strategies image of AMNH 5027

The image of AMNH 5027 does nothing for this section except mess up the layout, and I sugest it should be moved - perhaps to go with the paras about the head in "Description", where it would help to make the point about the robust skull. As for the type specimen, ugh! -- Philcha (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to the classification section, so the article can start with a more "sober" image, so people aren't mislead by the wrong type skull, the angled taxoimage, or the model head. It also makes it easier to compare the correct skull with the bad one and the model. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous Bite

Have anyone seen Jurassic Fight CLub documentry that mentions T-rex had VERY distintive teeth that were possibly injected bateria similar to Komodo dragan.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.192.50 (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that probably applies to most theropods and carnivorous reptiles in general, first of all. Second of all JFC is a total load, 99% overwrought hype and 1% actual science. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they make a clear distinction about the serrated teeth of T-rex being strikingly different from other theropods of the period. The size/shape and design are more than likely a result of the addition of bacteria in the Rex's mouth that would poison it's prey after initial bite. I suggest you watch it before dissmising it so easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.67.178.213 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen the show. Not good. As a rule of thumb, ignore the visuals (as they are poorly done accuracy wise), ignore anything that George dude says and ignore the narration. It doesn’t leave much. The only stuff that is reliable is the palaeontologists. (But even what they say can be destroyed with some bad editing, awful narration and dodgy visuals). That said, the bacteria line comes from Lawrence Witmer. He says that bits of left over rotting meat in the serrations might have produced bacteria. The 'VERY distintive' aspect is not about the serrations it’s about their overall shape (being wider than most other theropods). Most carnivorous dinosaurs had serrations. So Dinoguy is right, it could be applied to a lot of theropods. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What Steve and Dinoguy said. I've seen a few episodes so far, and the series should be seen as entertainment, not science. The "DinoGeorge" segments rely mostly on speculation, and even Holtz's comments seem taken out of context. They didn't get the theropod hands correct, they ignored the feathers, they pitted Nanotyrannus against Tyrannosaurus ignoring the probable synonomy, they got Majungasaurus' name wrong... Fun series, not truly encyclopedia-worthy, at least in terms of useful facts. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that the toxicity of komodo dragon bites come from an actual toxin (http://eebweb.arizona.edu/courses/Ecol437/FryEA2005_Nature_VenomEvolution.pdf), not from serrations, which are as noted widely present in things with teeth. T rex's wide teeth are most probably adapted to withstand/crush bone. Also, Jurassic Fight Club? Title ells you everthing you need to know about how much to trust the programn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.142.252 (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that episode and it actually got me thinking on another possible similarity between T-rex and Komodo Dragons: feeding habits. As you have probably noticed there is a lot of controversy about whether the T-rex was primarily a hunter or a scavenger, and part of this deals with whether or not they could run down prey. Perhaps, like monitors and crocodilians, Tyrannosaurus and other large carnivores change their behavior as they age. Dragons, for example, live in the trees while young and only live and hunt on the ground when they are big enough to avoid being eaten by the adults; crocs and gators will eat crustaceans and the like until they are big enough to ambush hunt large prey. While a full grown T-rex may have been too big to move quickly, a young one might have been agile and light enough to be an active hunter. Perhaps they did this while young and then scavenged more frequently after reaching full size.True, dinosaurs are more closely related to birds than to komodo dragons, but we can't really compare this sort of behavior to birds; they seem to stay in the nest until ready to fly, and by then they're almost as big as the adults. I suppose it depends on when these sorts of dinosaurs would leave the nest and what the physiology of juvenieles were like. I googled this idea and found a paper that seems to support it here: http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0031(197601)95:1%3C186:SATDAF%3E2.0.CO;2-5 Of course, it has speculation right there in the title, so I thought I should consult the talk pages before editing the T-rex article. What do you guys think? Briham (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the scavenger angle is fairly well covered, but well-referenced material about life-cycle changes in feeding habits would be really interesting. The Farlow article you found is 1976, but Googling for its title might get you relevant later articles that cite it. I'm looking forward to seeing what you can dig up. -- Philcha (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed text re size

Firsfron removed the following, despite the fact that I'd advised the author to to add refs and possibly move it to "Popular culture" - some things never change.

It is important to note that, while Tyrannosaurus is often depicted in popular culture as being tremendous, sometimes taller than most buildings and measuring several city blocks long, in reality it was not that much larger than other theropods. Despite being the absolute apex predator of its time, Tyrannosaurus measured about 35 ft in length and 16 ft tall on average, although its huge head and sturdy bone structure made it considerably more massive than theropods of similar dimensions. Tyrannosaurus's size is frequently exaggerated in pop culture to help it deliver a greater impression of the creature on viewers, which is much objected by serious scientists.

-- Philcha (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You're really disputing the removal of this material? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have given the author a couple of days to make something better of it, then deleted it. But then I try to be considerate with newcomers. -- Philcha (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In this case, leaving the article in that condition for a couple of days would mean several thousand readers would be reading that messy and not very accurate addition. According to the article's traffic history statistics, the article receives over 3000 hits per day.[7] Inconveniencing 6000 readers for the sake of one IP editor doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I have a feeling this has more to do with my revert of one of your edits many months (years?) ago, something I believe I apologized for long ago, and something I had hoped you had gotten over by now. At any rate, I hope you'll agree with me that Wikipedia is written for the readers and not for the editors, and the needs of the readers (especially many) come before those of a sole editor. Thus, a poorly-worded entry can always be fixed later, but leaving a highly-visible article in bad shape is not advisable. What if the article had been a BLP? Would you still leave dubious material in for the sake of a newbie editor? Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I found your comment "I hope you'll agree with me that Wikipedia is written for the readers and not for the editors, and the needs of the readers (especially many) come before those of a sole editor" interesting and will try to remember it next time we discuss expression and presentation.

Re the text you find objectionable, you could have posted it here along with a message before removing it, as I have done with other articles. -- Philcha (talk) 06:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If I posted awkward or misleading material to talk pages that had been in article space for each instance of it occurring, I'd be spending more time on Wikipedia than is healthy for me. No thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Chess had an editor who was over-enthusiastic and never added citations. After a few gentle hints he became a very useful contributor, and and got a Barnstar for it recently. -- Philcha (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a featured article. Any chunk of new text a paragraph or more long should probably be discussed first. Maybe in future situations, revert the edit and post the text here for re-working? Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my preferred solution. -- Philcha (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Not mine. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus under seige: day 76,980...

A bit of original research, but is Mike Taylor's link incorrect about the Manospondylus thing? He (like all other discussions I can find on this) states that if a junior synonym has plenty of use and a senior name hasn't been used for 50 years, the former is a nomen protectum and the latter is a nomen oblitum.

Doing research on Deinodontidae, I was reading this specific part of the code, and it says no such thing! (here's the link to the ICZN if you want to check my work [8]).

Here's what it takes to be a nomen oblitum: 23.9.2. An author who discovers that both the conditions of 23.9.1 are met should cite the two names together and state explicitly that the younger name is valid, and that the action is taken in accordance with this Article; at the same time the author must give evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met, and also state that, to his or her knowledge, the condition in Article 23.9.1.1 applies. From the date of publication of that act the younger name has precedence over the older name. When cited, the younger but valid name may be qualified by the term nomen protectum and the invalid, but older, name by the term nomen oblitum (see Glossary). In the case of subjective synonymy, whenever the names are not regarded as synonyms the older name may be used as valid.

First of all, as far as I know no author has cited the two names together and stated the junior is valid, or if they have we need to be citing it in the article, that's kind of important. The name must meet the conditions of both articles 23.9.1.2 and 23.9.1.1. Here's what those are: 23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

T. rex easily meets this criterion. It's been published by well over 10 authors in well over 25 papers within the 50 year limit after Manospondylus was named (maybe this is the misinterpreted 50 year figure?).

The second criterion for nomen oblitum: 23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899

Manospondylus probably does not meet this criterion, as it was used by both Osbourne 1917 and Matthew and Brown 1922, at least, in discussing its relationship to T. rex.

So it looks like everybody is wrong about this, and the only way to save Tyrannosaurus is with a special appeal to the ICZN (which would no doubt be granted) or just keep ignoring it ;)

Anyway, just fyi. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Tres interesting stuff. This whole Manospondylus thing makes me jealous for Brontosaurus. If T-rex can be granted an exception from the rules, why not Brontosaurus? Come on! 'Thunder lizard/Deceptive lizard'- which is the cooler name?--Gazzster (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)